09/18/89 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Sessi~ 1503, Mir~tes Page 6 September 18, 1989 had an advantage over legitimate r~ltors since they were not barred from so- liciting, and said she was only asking for the right to do business here. Ms. Milena Hale, 701 Yale, also a realtor, said she did not understand why "Sold" signs cannot be put on properties that have been sold, since it signi- fies success and is a positive sign for the City. She said University City has a great deal to offer, and sb~ saw no reason to prohibit "Sold" signs. Ms. April Schwartz, 7127 Cornell, a 20-year resident, said she has a great deal of faith in University City and thouc~ht it w-=s getting better all the time. As a realtor, she felt that prohibiting solicitation was a restraint of trade, and she wanted University City to cc~sider itself strong enough to al- low realtors the same kind of freedom they were allowed in other co~u~unities. Mr. Nor~ Polsky, 7449 Teasdale, said he was for~erly a School District e~ploy- ee, b~t recently became involved in real estate~ He said the present law dis- criminates against realtors in that other businesses can solicit here but re- altors cannot. He felt the organization could police itself, and getting rid of the anti-solicitation law would'benefit the c~Lu~,~nity. Mr. Price said he would not base his decision on what happened in 1972; also, he will not entertain the negative position taken by sc~e on the area north of Olive. He poin~_~d__ out that the schools in this area are excellent. He noted that speculators buy houses in the ~ War~ and then rent them instead of selling; that does nothing for the c~L,~,unity. He felt that absentee landlords were c~e of the wo£~t probl~ in his ward, and that the current law did not ~ress this. He thought the law should be examined to see if a win-win situ- atien could be achieved and said a strong, positive relationship with the real estate cc~u~l~ity was i~portant to University City. He approved using "Sold" signs o Mrs. Tnc~pson said that this is a different time than 1972 a~d she wished to assure residents t_hat blockbusting, racial steering, and redlining will not be tolerated in the Third Ward. Mr. ~a~s asked that the Plan C~tu,.~ssien look into changing the sign ordinance to permit "Sold" signs. Mayor Majerus agreed with this change, however, she noted that when the matter of changes in the solicitation law was raised by the Real Estate Board, she was told they were not interested in c~,~£~Ldse but wanted all restrictions abolished. She thought there were scme sections of the law that could be c_banged, but she felt the Council should take a careful look and go slowly. SD~ encouraged the Board to sit down with the Council to discuss the matter in hopes of benefiting all conceiT%ed. Mrs. Schuman also agreed that "Sold" signs should be allowed but noted they are often displayed long after the property is sold, and they become advertis- Lng rat_her than information. She was willing to discuss the possible changing of the anti-solicitation law, but said she felt people don't like to be solic- ited at hc~e. She said University city was now a strong c~m,enity and should be pr~,~ted as much as possible, but it must not be forgotten that the city's